Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • walrus
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

    Performative theater, especially the bolded.
    No doubt, if anyone thinks Glen Beck isn't getting the best medical care that money can buy and whatever drugs he needs to get better is crazy. And I'd bet the house those drugs are not horse dewormers.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    In Karma related news Glenn Beck has COVID again and it has spread to his lungs. He is unvaxxed of course. He is currently taking Ivermectin and Hydroxi-naganna-nagannasavehislife to try and get back to health.
    Performative theater, especially the bolded.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    It definitely is in some industries, but considerably less so than others. I don't know how you have different rules for different sectors without lawsuits though.
    Right, but as of now, I am working from home. I don't need to go outside. For me, it could be that my work is the only way I am exposed. Obviously that's not the case here, but it kind of points to a really ominous future where hazards that aren't exclusively workplace hazards are no longer regulatable (is that a word?) by OSHA. Take hearing proteciton. If you you work in an area where your time-weighted average is above a certain dB, you are monitored for hearing loss. If you have a threshold shift, meaning your loss of hearing passes a threshold, that loss is going to be covered as a workers comp injury. But the problem is, how do you know that person isn't going to the gun range and shooting without hearing protection on the weekends? You can't. So should hearing protection not be regulated by OSHA because it's not exclusively a workplace hazard?

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    The primary problem the OSHA regulation is going to have is the arbitrariness of it. Like so much of the response to the covid pandemic, it's just someone in a position of authority pulling something out of their azz and declaring that's the rule. Like standing six feet away or five days without symptoms instead of 10.

    Congress has granted to OSHA rulemaking authority to address safety issues in the workplace. That's fine, and even necessary. We wouldn't want Congress to have to come up with and decide all of the rules on their own.

    But when OSHA says something like this rule only applies to employers with more than 100 employees, it completely undercuts the need for the rule.

    For instance, I suspect there are many OSHA rules that apply to employers who have their employees work in trenches, a very dangerous work condition because of the possibility of collapse.

    But what if OSHA just said, "this only applies to employers with at least 100 employees." If that's the case, how necessary really is the rule? How dangerous is the condition that OSHA is trying to address.

    Strangely enough, OSHA would probably stand a better chance of having the rule upheld if they just said it applied to all employers.
    I disagree entirely that it is arbitrary, and they explained the 100-employee cutoff fairly well, in my opinion.


    I am relieved that the CMS mandate was (for now) upheld, but I'm less concerned about the OSHA mandate. I think it was a good try by the Biden Administration and, even now, it did get a lot of people vaccinated and a lot of companies mandated it (and don't plan on un-mandating it). I feel like it served it's purpose even without really going into effect. I would not be heartbroken if it was withdrawn.


    The CMS mandate was the truly important one. We absolutely cannot have clinical staff that refuse to be vaccinated.

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    It definitely is in some industries, but considerably less so than others. I don't know how you have different rules for different sectors without lawsuits though.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by Swansong View Post
    SCOTUS released two COVID-related decisions. Both aren't final, they're effectively whether or not to stay the OSHA and CMS mandates for vaccination/test while the actual cases work their way through the lower courts.
    • CMS: Rules upheld. Healthcare orgs that receive federal funds (so... virtually all of them) will require vaccines for all staff.
    • OSHA: Rules stayed. Vaccine-or-test mandate is on hold until the case is finally decided.
    I've been reading a lot about the OSHA case, as the CMS case seemed fairly open and shut (and Kavanaugh and Roberts both voted to uphold it as well as the liberals). Per the constitution, Congress is supposed to be the governing body regarding these laws, but they've delegated entirely to OSHA, which is under the Executive branch. The legal challenge is entirely questioning whether they've delegated this to OSHA. It's a good legal question, as OSHA has never tried doing something exactly like requiring a vaccine or test program. I'm not terribly surprised that SCOTUS ordered the stay on enforcement and it may or may not mean anything for the mandate itself.
    The reasoning the SCOTUS used was absolute nonsense. They said this wasn't strictly a workplace hazard. Think about that for a second. It's the dumbest logic I've ever seen from this court.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    The news also pointed out the number of shooting deaths. Which was 1/5 the number of COVID deaths. (+300 vs. 61)

    Imagine the news if those were reversed. The country would be in a major panic over cop deaths.

    Then again, we have passed the total deaths from the Civil War in just about 2 years of COVID, and people still want to pretend this isn't a big deal. I'm sure jebbers will try to say those cops has underlying problems. Too many doughnuts.
    I saw a stat somewhere to the effect of, "for people under 40, more Americans have died from COVID than have been murdered in the entire time they've been alive."

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Interesting observation in the local news- it was about the large amount of stuff confiscated trying to cross the US-Canada border in Michigan.

    While it wasn't mentioned, there was a picture of bottles that said "Ivermectin" on it, along with a lot of characters that are from an Asian language- would guess Chinese.

    Ivermectin has made such an impact that it's being smuggled into the US.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post


    Strangely enough, OSHA would probably stand a better chance of having the rule upheld if they just said it applied to all employers.
    That would be a interesting twist- trying to give some relief for the small companies in the intent, but forcing it because you can't give small companies legal outs for a safety item.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by Swansong View Post
    SCOTUS released two COVID-related decisions. Both aren't final, they're effectively whether or not to stay the OSHA and CMS mandates for vaccination/test while the actual cases work their way through the lower courts.
    • CMS: Rules upheld. Healthcare orgs that receive federal funds (so... virtually all of them) will require vaccines for all staff.
    • OSHA: Rules stayed. Vaccine-or-test mandate is on hold until the case is finally decided.
    I've been reading a lot about the OSHA case, as the CMS case seemed fairly open and shut (and Kavanaugh and Roberts both voted to uphold it as well as the liberals). Per the constitution, Congress is supposed to be the governing body regarding these laws, but they've delegated entirely to OSHA, which is under the Executive branch. The legal challenge is entirely questioning whether they've delegated this to OSHA. It's a good legal question, as OSHA has never tried doing something exactly like requiring a vaccine or test program. I'm not terribly surprised that SCOTUS ordered the stay on enforcement and it may or may not mean anything for the mandate itself.
    The primary problem the OSHA regulation is going to have is the arbitrariness of it. Like so much of the response to the covid pandemic, it's just someone in a position of authority pulling something out of their azz and declaring that's the rule. Like standing six feet away or five days without symptoms instead of 10.

    Congress has granted to OSHA rulemaking authority to address safety issues in the workplace. That's fine, and even necessary. We wouldn't want Congress to have to come up with and decide all of the rules on their own.

    But when OSHA says something like this rule only applies to employers with more than 100 employees, it completely undercuts the need for the rule.

    For instance, I suspect there are many OSHA rules that apply to employers who have their employees work in trenches, a very dangerous work condition because of the possibility of collapse.

    But what if OSHA just said, "this only applies to employers with at least 100 employees." If that's the case, how necessary really is the rule? How dangerous is the condition that OSHA is trying to address.

    Strangely enough, OSHA would probably stand a better chance of having the rule upheld if they just said it applied to all employers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    SCOTUS released two COVID-related decisions. Both aren't final, they're effectively whether or not to stay the OSHA and CMS mandates for vaccination/test while the actual cases work their way through the lower courts.
    • CMS: Rules upheld. Healthcare orgs that receive federal funds (so... virtually all of them) will require vaccines for all staff.
    • OSHA: Rules stayed. Vaccine-or-test mandate is on hold until the case is finally decided.
    I've been reading a lot about the OSHA case, as the CMS case seemed fairly open and shut (and Kavanaugh and Roberts both voted to uphold it as well as the liberals). Per the constitution, Congress is supposed to be the governing body regarding these laws, but they've delegated entirely to OSHA, which is under the Executive branch. The legal challenge is entirely questioning whether they've delegated this to OSHA. It's a good legal question, as OSHA has never tried doing something exactly like requiring a vaccine or test program. I'm not terribly surprised that SCOTUS ordered the stay on enforcement and it may or may not mean anything for the mandate itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post

    COVID-19: The real swine flu
    (Slow clap)

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    I thought once you got Covid once, you were immune?

    Huh.

    I guess, just like vaccines, natural immunity doesn't work. So much for trusting my immune system.

    Leave a comment:


  • SonofSouthie
    replied
    Mayor of Boston employee vax mandate was upheld in court yesterday. Don't have the 1st jab by Sat you're out; don't have the 2nd jab by Feb 15 same result.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post

    Or ones that went generic a long time ago and therefore don't make obscene amounts of money anymore.
    Great point!

    In Karma related news Glenn Beck has COVID again and it has spread to his lungs. He is unvaxxed of course. He is currently taking Ivermectin and Hydroxi-naganna-nagannasavehislife to try and get back to health.

    Tots and Pears You Fat Fucking Piece of Crap

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X